In contrast to some literary critics today, Eco insists certain interpretations
must be “privileged” over others. This does not mean, however, that any
one interpretation is correct or best. The quest is not for “the one who
makes the ‘only/right’ conjecture.” 26 In fact, since in the future more
interpretations are likely to appear, in the present it is impossible to com-
pare every possible candidate for the title of “best interpretation.”
E CO: USING TEXTS AND INTERPRETING TEXTS
An important observation advanced by Eco is that not every reader is an
interpreter. Many readers use texts but do not interpret them. This prin-
ciple became clear to me in a history course I took thirty years ago. In it,
the professor described how he had solved a problem of military history
by using a love letter. 27 The problem was this: It seems that a much larger,
better equipped army had been soundly defeated by a smaller army, and
the reason for the smaller army’s success was unclear. Then my professor
found a love letter from the same provenance and time as the battle. In
that letter a young man apologized profusely to his fi ancée for an unsuc-
cessful attempt to visit her. There had been so much rain in recent weeks
and the roads were so muddy that when he set out his wagon had sunk
to its axles and become mired. The young man pleaded with his beloved
not to take offense at his absence. My professor concluded on the basis of
this report about impassable roads that the smaller, poorly equipped army,
unencumbered by the heavy artillery of the larger army, was more mobile
than its adversary. In fact, the mud likely turned the larger army’s artillery
into a millstone, since, if the cannons could not be positioned properly,
they were of no use. The weather had decided the outcome of the battle.
Clearly my professor had read this love letter, but he was not interested
in it as literature. He did not interpret it. He used it, but in a way inconsis-
tent with the letter’s design. And this is hardly an unusual story; historians
routinely “use” rather than “interpret” texts.
This distinction is important to Eco. While he will not criticize any “use”
of a text, he is willing to judge some “interpretations” of texts harshly. He
does not baldly call improbable interpretations “wrong,” but he is willing
to call them “bad.” Since Eco does not believe there is ever a single right
interpretation, using the word “wrong” seems too absolutist. But he also
believes that certain interpretations are easily discredited and therefore are
“bad.” This brings to mind the dictum of Protagoras that “Man is the mea-
sure of all things,” and that while one opinion might not be truer than
ECHOING HIRSCH: DO READERS FIND OR CONSTRUCT MEANING? 91